Free Allegiance Forums

Allow people to resign SGs.

Simple reasons:

1) If someone resigns you beat them, if they don't resign but want to you're fighting a team who has already conceded and thus will be no fun for them at all.

2) You might think that's cheating you of your victory but guess what? You won.

3) You might be able to get two squad games in there instead of 1 since people won't get frustrated and bored and/or run out of time so easily.

Thoughts?

I agree with this

I'm not qualified to comment (when has this ever stopped me) because I'm un-squadded but I always liked the idea that squad games aren't supposed to be resigned. It seems somehow appropriate to fight them to the end. Besides, the level of skill should be higher than in pugs -- maybe it should be expected that either a) the losing team will find some way to get at least a small chance at making a comeback, or b) if the losing team is really losing that badly, then the winning team should find a way to end it without the whole thing stretching out for ages.

Also I don't understand how staring at the lobby screen after a resign can ever be more fun than playing a game to the end and trying your best, even if you don't feel you have a chance at a comeback.

<Shrug> Again, I don't know what I'm talking about here, but I was just thinking about this yesterday after squad resigns came up in another thread.

I more or less agree with the topic.

girlyboy wrote:QUOTE (girlyboy @ Jan 30 2012, 01:29 PM) I'm not qualified to comment (when has this ever stopped me) because I'm un-squadded but I always liked the idea that squad games aren't supposed to be resigned. It seems somehow appropriate to fight them to the end. Besides, the level of skill should be higher than in pugs -- maybe it should be expected that either a) the losing team will find some way to get at least a small chance at making a comeback, or b) if the losing team is really losing that badly, then the winning team should find a way to end it without the whole thing stretching out for ages.

Also I don't understand how staring at the lobby screen after a resign can ever be more fun than playing a game to the end and trying your best, even if you don't feel you have a chance at a comeback.

<Shrug> Again, I don't know what I'm talking about here, but I was just thinking about this yesterday after squad resigns came up in another thread.

Your mailbox is full .

People already resign squad games sadly so any sort of rule change is unnecessary.

Also there are lots of games that are winnable but where people resign because they arr lazy. Limiting resigns forces people to think outside the box, play better, and not give up at the first sign of adversity.

We once had a squad resign a game 9 minutes in because they lost their Eco con. We once had a squad resign a game because we launched a corv. We once lost our garrison 5 minutes in as giga exp with no boosters, bombers, or miners and stayed in it to achieve victory. Why? because we arent lazy whiny bastards who resign at the drop of a hat. Allowing official resigns in squad games may lower what is already very shoddy play

spideycw wrote:QUOTE (spideycw @ Jan 30 2012, 06:46 PM) People already resign squad games sadly so any sort of rule change is unnecessary.

Also there are lots of games that are winnable but where people resign because they arr lazy. Limiting resigns forces people to think outside the box, play better, and not give up at the first sign of adversity.

We once had a squad resign a game 9 minutes in because they lost their Eco con. We once had a squad resign a game because we launched a corv. We once lost our garrison 5 minutes in as giga exp with no boosters, bombers, or miners and stayed in it to achieve victory. Why? because we arent lazy whiny bastards who resign at the drop of a hat. Allowing official resigns in squad games may lower what is already very shoddy play

I totally understand the merits of not resigning, and I agree with them. I for-one has never ever resigned a squad game but there are points where you're beaten and it just takes time to finish the game.

Yes I know some people resign early, but they're the same people who won't think outside the box. They'll just sit in base and go afk.

The people who don't like resigning still WON'T resign.

I just don't think it should be frowned upon as a whole.

And regarding Girlyboy's "looking at the endscreen instead of fighting to the bitter end" you've missed the point entirely. Why would you be looking at the end stat screen? You'll be looking at the counter for the next game starting...

I prefer the game then the victory, if you just have resigns then it becomes like DSM of oh noes they pushed exp past our op, we resign. NI might have resigned after losing their op con and one of their early miners and that wouldn't have been fun.

Resigns are a hollow victory for me, if I don't see a base dying followed by 15 scouts popping out and the game ending then it's not good enough.

I'm in favor of resigning games which otherwise stretch out testing people's bladders and bloodymindedness.

If the players are astute and enough conscientious enough to recognize when both teams are not likely to get much more out of the game but a prolonged DM, resign.

I suggest checking in with the other team... if there's a chance of closure withing a reasonable time, great... but if it's a wait while the twinning team scrapes cash, why grate people's nerves?

The people in favour of "fighting until the end" are using extreme examples of dick head moves pulled by people. I'm not on about that, it should still be frowned upon people doing that. I'm talking about the 40/50 minute game where you're gone full combat tech no bomber tech it's been quite "close" but they've not got any chance (still on early enh tech vs your multiple adv) but somehow, due to the map and/or just lack of a real effort to finish the game due to lack of skill from the enemy commander or just plain sloppyness, the game isn't ending.

Instead of wasting 20-30 minutes waiting for the game to end for the addicts to get their kick and the entire enemy team (bar a few who never give up like me) just stay in base and/or go afk, you could start another game with the action still fresh in your minds and the game feeling "good" for all parties.

the losers feel soundly beaten but not trodden on, the winners feel the triumph of victory.

I believe the resistance against this is asshattery from both ends. The people who like toying with their food, and fear of the people who resign early.

I know most of you have comfort issues but stop taking the extremes and realise that games can have a better ending than all bases destroyed and after opening op was lost.

Dorjan wrote:QUOTE (Dorjan @ Jan 30 2012, 02:24 PM) somehow, due to [...] lack of a real effort to finish the game due to lack of skill from the enemy commander or just plain sloppyness, the game isn't ending.

But... shouldn't squad games at least in theory be about discouraging and combating this sort of thing -- people not putting in effort, lack of skill, etc. -- rather than accepting them as inevitable and trying to change the rules/accepted practices to accommodate them?

Again, I think I've only actually played in a squad game like... once or so (as a merc) but I always liked the idea that there's this whole other level of play above and different from pugs, and I think different and stricter rules surrounding squad games kind of makes sense... Ehh. Or at least, maybe that's what the ideal to work towards should be?